Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 3150 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Similarly, under clause 31 an auctioneer cannot accept a bid if the auctioneer knows that the bid was made by the seller. The penalty is 100 units. Again, for knowing that something is not so, a falsehood, dishonesty, there is a penalty of 100 units. I would commend to the Assembly acceptance in the detail stage of the opposition's amendment to subclause 26 (4), which makes the penalty a maximum of 100 units rather than 50 units to bring it into line with the deliberate types of offences as opposed to mere omission offences which have a maximum penalty of 50 units.

I mentioned that to the government officials when they gave me their latest briefing last week in relation to this bill. I am not sure what the government is doing in that regard, but I would certainly commend that amendment to the Assembly when the times comes.

All in all, I think that this bill is very much worthy of support. Gazumping is a problem. We specifically have gazumping problems at a time when properties are scarce and there are lots of bidders and it is particularly frustrating for people who are gazumped. I think that this bill goes a long way to redressing that situation. At times when properties are scarce, it will have some effect. The opposition will be supporting the bill and I commend to my Assembly colleagues the proposed amendment on which I have gone into some detail.

MS DUNDAS (11.12): Mr Speaker, the ACT Democrats will be supporting this bill, which will prevent heartache among many people trying to buy their own home. Many people believe that an oral offer and acceptance is binding on both parties in both a legal and a moral sense. Indeed, in classic contract law a spoken acceptance of an offer is just as legally binding as a signature on a written contract.

Many home buyers have been astonished to learn that an oral offer they have made which they were told had been accepted was actually worth nothing. This is particularly galling, given that most people are aware that real estate agents are bound to follow high professional and ethical standards.

I believe that the bill before us will make gazumping much less common and will reduce or eliminate financial losses by gazumped purchasers. It is clear that consultation with property and legal professionals has created an effective and workable solution to the problem of gazumping. This legislation does not make gazumping an offence, but it should reduce the incidences of gazumping by focusing on prevention rather than punishment.

I commend the provisions of the bill that require the vendor to prepare a building inspection report, a pest inspection report, records of encumbrances and title searches to save duplication of effort and expense by prospective purchasers. It is where a prospective buyer has outlaid substantial funds for necessary reports that gazumping causes the most anger and distress. Under this bill, only the successful purchaser has to pay for the costs of obtaining these reports. This solution is more elegant than the earlier proposal to require vendors to compensate a gazumped purchaser for costs incurred. Such a law, I believe, would have been quite messy to administer.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .